Just as the great philosopher Nietzsche said God is dead, I wish to say that Libertarianism is dead. I know, coming from a Republican who voted for McCain who posts on a largely Libertarian blog site is a pretty ballsy move. But many of the philosophical stands are a bit contrdictary. It's my honest point of view and I will try my best to explain it to you dudes without offense.
Abolition of laws against victim-less crimes sounds all and good, but many of those laws do involve a victim. Laws prohibiting heroin and pcp, drugs with no medical use, attempts to prevent people from becoming a victim of addiction (if you can't try it, you can't get addicted; in more legal terms the drug can't commit assault upon you). The same can be said for drugs with some medical use such as cocaine, these are highly addictive and poisonous to the human body; addicts are a victim. Also the call to abolish seat belt laws is absurd. Those laws were inacted to prevent people from being killed in automobles, seat belts save lives. Anyone who thinks otherwise should watch the videos in drivers-ed more carefully and realize that many of those who were dead in the video didn't wear a seat belt. Not to metion the child pornography argument Mary Ruwart put forth in her platform in 2008. Any loving parent would rightfully beat the livig s**t out of her after hearing that, I know it's a bit harsh to say but still it's just so wrong on so many levels that further explanation as to why it wrong is unnecessary. (I am not nocking Mrs. Ruwart personally, but her stance is bit kooky).
A foreign policy of non-interventionism and a laissez-faire economic system, again sounds good but is historically contradictary. The most famous example of this the virtual colonial empire in Central America in the 1800's up until the late 1950's; United Fruit owned most of the agricultural land in Central America and used their vast resources to prop-up dictators. Thomas Jefferson, the most laissez-faire President America ever had, had an expansionist foreign policy and understood that a nationalist stance is necessary to maintain the economy. So, as you can see under laissez-faire you will either have a Corporation becoming an imperial power or the nation.
A strong civil liberties position and opposition to civil rights laws that regulate the private sector. I'm sorry, but that is contradictary. The laws exist to allow people to have civil liberties. True affirmative action is ridiculus, but so is allowing a business to refuse service based on skin color. It's just silly to have the point of view of being in favor of civil liberties yet not support laws to ensure you can use them.
This is why the Libertarian Party has no substantial future in American politics, the philosophy is just so faulty that an average person is either confused or irritated with the contradictions. True, the LP has forced the GOP more fiscally responsible economically and more protective of property rights. However, Libertarianism as a philosophical movement is dead and politically minor.©2008 Joe W., all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Sunday, December 7, 2008
Last modified: Sunday, December 7, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Joe W. only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Joe W. is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Joe W. of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Joe W. |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Josh Koch
Date: 2008-12-07 06:30:29
Actually, I love what you Republicans have done with the country the last couple years. Great work with the deficit, and bang-up job with the so-called "War on Terror." Conservatism is dead. The legacy of Reagan has been gunned down in Baghdad by Blackwater security.
Freedom will outlive you fascists, who merely masquerade as small-goverment "compassionate conservatives."
Posted By: Matt D. Harris
Date: 2008-12-07 06:56:09
Alcohol can also be addictive, and certainly causes a lot of problems for folks. How come it's not banned, along with other so-called harmful drugs?
Also, I'd like to thank prohibitionists. Their prohibition of drugs has thankfully prevented a genuine drug problem from taking hold in America's cities. It's worked so well, just like other government programs have, and saved the citizenry an awful lot of nasty-wasty troubles!
Furthermore, I'm sure this article was just as much a joke as my response has been, but I do need to point out one factual error - Mary Ruwart never had a "child porn thing" as part of her 2008 platform. People should consider, y'know, doing research and saying things that are true instead of... well, saying things that just aren't true, as a lot of people seem to do today.
Posted By: gene
Date: 2008-12-07 10:19:16
Hi Joe, Most of what you stated is simply some of the differences between Repubs and Libertarians. You seem to think the Repub view is right and the Libertarian view is wrong. I would agree on the contradictory quality of the civil rights issue. I would also add the environmental issue, how is it right to believe that personal liberty includes freedom from harm or injury to any individual or the individuals property and also okay to believe environmental harm doesn't fall under harm to individual or property? As far as Libertarians forcing the GOP to be more fiscally conservative, good luck coming up with some proof on that one! Right now, the voters have decreeded the GOP as dead. The LP is pretty much where it has traditionally been, neither dead nor alive.
Posted By: severin
Date: 2008-12-07 15:23:51
It is hard to take you seriously, it is not as if any of us know what a republican stands for.
As far as I can tell the only thing republicans agree on is that they hate brown people, whether they are crossing the southern border or they are in the middle east the republicans seem to want to hurt or kill them. Beyond that I can't tell what republicans stand for.
Correct me if I am wrong, but based on their action over the last 8 years. It seems that they like big government and big deficits, they like bailing out their buddies, and support sending babies to become indoctrinated in government institutions. They like to send black people to jail for victimless crimes. They think Janet Jackson’s breast is a major issue, but think that providing quality healthcare to Iraq vets is not a big deal.
Posted By: Master C
Date: 2008-12-07 18:02:58
Joe,
Libertarianism is not dead ~ like Frankenstein, it was raised from a conglomeration of dead organs and limbs, then electrified by several jolts of electricity to get it walking and grunting, then it was hunted down and killed by a mob of citizens who saw what an abomination and disgrace to God it truly was.
Libertarianism is not dead. It never lived except in the minds of those who never fit in with the rest of society. Libertarians are like lepers ~ they're alright when they stay with others of their kind. But, they can never mix in with those who are not lepers because they won't compromise, they won't accept majority decisions, and they think theirs is the only way things can succeed.
Master C
Posted By: hlm
Date: 2008-12-07 18:05:33
Libertarianism is not dead but it is not well. But typical of a conservative statist you don’t understand libertarianism, its arguments or what the problem is. And you clearly misstate Mary Ruwart’s views and apparently by into the Barr/Root smear campaign which intentionally twisted what she said. (For those interested Roderick Long did a full analysis of what Ruwart said in context where the Barr/Root conservatives removed the context intentionally).
The main threat to libertarianism today is that it is perceived too close to conservatives. That people even think libertarianism is right-wing is a major problem. Conservatives have destroyed everything they touched in the last two terms of Bush. They have discredited their religious values (a good thing I think), free enterprise (a bad thing for them to have done) and their allies like (libertarians). Libertarians should have abandoned working with conservatives when the Cold War ended. Not having done so is now a disaster for libertarians. It means people perceive us as conservatives and conservatives are brainless, cruel and dominated by fanatical religious beliefs.
Of course the main contradictions here are with this conservative. He stupidly think drug laws prevent addiction -- something for which there is zero evidence. He accepts all statis slogans without critical thought. Seat belts do save lives of drivers especially. But the evidence also showed that the perceived safety of seat belts caused drivers to be more reckless and one result was greater deaths among pedestrians. Before the stupidity of drivers killed the drivers. Now stupidity of drivers kills others -- he thinks that is an improvement.
He then lies about Mary Ruwart’s position -- a typical conservative tactic by the way. And then basically says that people, if they are “loving parents” should beat the shit out of her. But then conservatives love using force against others. The Left uses force to “help” people and the Right uses force to “punish” them.
He distorts history regarding non-interventionism which has mostly been associated with laissez faire. The advocates of markets only started accepting internvetionism under the putrid influence of Bill Buckley in the late 50s. Prior to that interventionism was the policy of socialists, progressives and other statists -- it still is.
Basically this Republican ends up saying that what we need to preserve liberty is a massive state with lots of power which denies people freedom of choice to prevent them from hurting themselves. He sounds like a Clinton Democrat to me.
Posted By: lpcowboy
Date: 2008-12-07 20:37:44
Heroin has medical use. In the early 1900s you could purchase Bayer(R) Heroin over the counter. It was a controled dose and both safe and effective. Most commercial modern painkillers are basically a repakaged and patented version of Heroin at 100x the cost of what it would be if decriminalized.
PCP has a commercial use as an animal tranquilizer.
Posted By: LibertarianBlue
Date: 2008-12-08 10:35:12
You sound alot like a Social Conservative to me. Tell me, what success has the War on Drugs brought? Other than wasting police and prison reasoruces. I have yet to see anything successful out of this pipe dream that Nixon started and every other presdient since him has continued.
Posted By: r3volt
Date: 2008-12-08 13:10:01
I agree the libertarianism is dead; you neglected to mention where it is dead though. It is dead in the halls of our government. While it may be dead there, the philosophy is spreading like wild fire in the general population and will soon make its way into DC. It is all a matter of time.
So while you are half right about the death of libertarian ideals in the mainstream media and political mainstream, that does not mean that the spirit and ideals of the most free from of government is growing in popularity.
This can be seen in the US as well as the world. Iceland is holding a corrupt central banking system under siege (as if central banking is anything other than corrupt) and even the socialist Canadians are trying to, yet again, oust their corrupt government. From Thailand to Brazil, people are becomming aware of libertarianism and how it can free a people.
To govern a people in anything other than libertarian principles is tyranny and oppression. In fact, even "democracy" is merely a form of people farming. While it appears more free, it still is governmental control. More and more in America are realizing this.
Posted By: Steve LaBianca
Date: 2008-12-10 19:35:01
"Laws prohibiting heroin and pcp, drugs with no medical use, attempts to prevent people from becoming a victim of addiction (if you can\'t try it, you can\'t get addicted; in more legal terms the drug can\'t commit assault upon you)."
Say WHAT??? I realize that the statement in parentheses is stated in the negative, but "the drug can't commit assault upon you" !!!!!
Does this person realize the simple fact that assault has to be "committed" by an acting entity? PCP cannot "act", therefore it cannot "commit assault". The acting individual is the person ingesting the drug, so if there is any "assault" it is done by the "self". Anyone who purports to hold to absolute property rights of the "self" would uphold that no law can be made which prohibits or mandates personal behavior can be made without violating this most basic property right.
In my view, this writer's one statement nullifies any validity of the article.
Posted By: Eric
Date: 2008-12-14 22:58:08
Sir, The fundamental basis on which you make your entire argument is flawed. We shall take a few of your arguments as examples of the errors in judgement.1. Abolition laws against victim-less crimes: your claim is that there is in fact a victim. The drug addict who acts as your victim may in fact be one, but he is a victim to his own mind and own weaknesses. The argument is not whether this victim should be protected from himself, but that he ought to be allowed to make himself a victim, if he so chooses. What you are missing is not that Libertarians believe drugs cannot be prosecuted and therefore there is no victim, but that American Citizens should have the RIGHT to choose whether to use drugs, regardless of the outcome.2. Seatbelt laws fall under the same guidelines: no one is arguing that seatbelts do not save lives. IN fact, all the evidence overwhelmingly states that seatbelts do just that. The argument is that regardless of the outcome, the Government should have no role in telling a free citizen that they have to wear a seatbelt. If a free man wants to drive without his seatbelt on, he will pay the price for his own stupidity.3. Civil liberties, yet opposition to civil rights: this is perhaps the biggest argument you attempted to make, unfortunately, you missed the point again. NO one is arguing that all men ought to be treated equal or at least judged by their character and worth. Instead, the argument is saying that as free individuals a citizen should have the RIGHT to deal with any person he/she chooses. This goes for personal and professional relationships. If a business owner wants to only higher whites/blacks/red/ yellows or any other race, creed, orientation; he should have the right to. Even if most Americans find it detestable that anyone should discriminate based on the aforementioned, it is nonetheless, or rather should be a right for an individual to do so.
Posted By: Nick
Date: 2008-12-16 20:56:27
The financial crisis has dealt a blow to libertarian economics views at least in the publics mind. But the belief that the free market is the best way to spread wealth is still an absolute truth. But what libertarians have to learn is to be flexible and accept at least very prudent oversight, because capitalism, as Adam Smith said, must be grounded by a moral center. Politicians and immoral oppurtunists sometimes abuse it, there should have been oversight to stop banks from giving out mortgages to anyone who could stand-up straight and those mortgages shouldn't have been used to buy securities. Libertarian ideas worked under Reagan to get us out of an economic funk in the early-80s and can still work today. We need to balance the budget, support free-trade, lower taxes when possible, find a way to privatize entitlements, and cut subsidies. The government needs to stay out of people's lives, stop curbing civil liberties, stop legistlating morality, and have a more reasonable drug policy especially regarding marijuana (I see no problem with going after cocaine and heroin though). These are all ideas that are popular not only here but around the world. Look at the ground-swell of support for Ron Paul, especially among young voters. Libertarian ideas is what got the GOP back into power under Reagan in 1980 and in Congress in 1994 and is the only way it will return to power. Return to libertarian roots and the GOP will find success, if it doesn't it will wander in the wilderness for many years to come.
Posted By: Bob F
Date: 2008-12-25 01:38:51
Joe, if you have been unable to reconile contradictions in your view of libertarianism, that says more about you than it does about the idea itself.
You cite non-violent drug offenders as being victims of the addictive power of drugs, are we to start blaming bullets for the deaths of people rather than the people who pulled the triggers?
Anyone who is slightly more than a half-wit puts on their seatbelt when they get in a car. Not because it is the law but because it does provide significant protection during a crash. If there are people who do not want to wear them, let them, it's their funeral and I could care less (except for the impingement on their freedom to be stupid and not wear one).
Demanding strong support for civil freedom from the government and yet not supporting civil rights laws that regulate the private sector is not contradictory. If a business owner is a dumb ignorant racist and wants to exclude a specific race from his store why should he not be allowed to do so? It is his store. It was his hard work that built that store and he should be able to decide what he wants to do with it. Bans on indoor smoking in a business are the same thing. If the business owner wants to allow indoor smoking it should be allowed, he owns the business.
With widespread knowledge easily passed around through the internet of stores that are racist, it is very easy for others who are allowed to shop there to boycott and shop somewhere else putting the owner out of business.
Libertarianism at its most basic is about: my body, my property, my choice.
When the world comes to respect this viewpoint we will have peace on earth.